Moore et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
CHRISTINE M. MOORE and
MICHAEL MOORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
MO:25-CV-00326-DC
ORDER
Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin’s reports and
recommendations (Docs. 30, 31, 32, 33) concerning Defendants’ various motions to dismiss
(Docs. 25, 5, 11, 12, respectively). The R&Rs collectively dismissed from the case
Defendants Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, Shelley Nail, and Freedom
Mortgage Corporation. Claims were also dismissed against Defendants Fannie Mae and
PHH Mortgage Corporation. Because objections were timely filed, this Court reviews de novo,
finding no error.
In their objections, Plaintiffs assert that (1) the case was improperly removed and
jurisdiction has not been established; (2) Defendants do not have standing; (3) the R&Rs
relied on state proceedings found to be void; (4) the R&Rs were not timely served on
Plaintiffs; and (5) Plaintiffs do not consent to the Magistrate Judge disposing of the case.
Several of these objections are frivolous and thus easily disposed of. First, the
Magistrate Judge already determined that there is proper jurisdiction. Doc. 31 at 2. Second,
Defendants do not need standing. Article III of the United States Constitution requires
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 56 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
standing to bring a lawsuit, not defend one. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 414
(2021). Third, the R&Rs were properly mailed to Plaintiffs via certified mail,1 (Doc. 39),
which were returned as undeliverable (Doc. 43). After the Court issued a show cause order
(Doc. 38), Plaintiffs came to collect their R&Rs in person (Doc. 43). The Court then
extended the objection deadline accordingly (Docs. 44, 48). Plaintiffs have since filed their
objections (Doc. 50). And the Court is resolving the objections despite a deficiency in the
filing format of those objections. Nothing in these facts “preclude[s] adoption” of the R&R.
(Doc. 50). Fourth, Plaintiffs “express non-consent to Magistrate disposition”
misunderstands the magistrate judge’s role. The R&R is not a “final disposition” by a
magistrate judge; it is a recommendation only, and this Court conducts de novo review of any
properly preserved objections before entering any dispositive order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
lack of consent does not bar the magistrate judge from recommending dismissal and
provides no basis to reject the R&R.
As to Plaintiffs’ final argument—concerning “reliance on void or post-vacatur
proceedings,” the Court does not understand the objection and therefore cannot rule on it.
The entirety of the objection on these grounds reads:
The Reports and Recommendations implicitly rely on state-court proceedings
that Plaintiffs allege were void or carried forward after vacatur. Federal
jurisdiction cannot be predicated on void proceedings. The magistrate judge
erred by assuming the validity of such proceedings rather than resolving
jurisdictional defects first.
1 The R&Rs were initially improperly sent via regular mail. The Court asked the Clerk of
Court to resend the R&Rs via certified mail and extended the objection deadlines
accordingly.
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 56 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Doc. 50 at 4. The Court does not understand what state proceedings were “void or carried
forward after vacatur.” And the Magistrate Judge handled the jurisdictional questions.
All of Plaintiffs’ objections are baseless. And because of that, they are
OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the relevant reports and recommendations.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 24th day of February 2026.
DAVID COUNTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 56 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3